I tend to agree with Walter Shapiro’s assessment in the New Republic of the second Trump impeachment proceedings. Democrats botched it:
The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump ended with a whimper Saturday afternoon, leaving time for the long weekend in honor of, yes, presidents. And like a veteran mob boss who sneers at justice, Trump beat the rap again as his adversaries fell 10 votes short of the 67 needed for conviction.
Yes, there were small consolations. Seven Republican senators mustered the moxie to find Trump guilty of inciting an uprising that directly led to members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence running for their lives. There were also lasting moments of eloquence from the House Democratic managers, particularly Jamie Raskin and Joe Neguse, even as Trump’s lead attorney Michael van der Veen, a Philadelphia slip-and-fall lawyer, managed to humiliate himself at every turn, at one point even mispronouncing the name of his own hometown.
But what the last day of the impeachment trial will mostly be remembered for is Democratic disarray on the vital question of calling witnesses. As legendary baseball manager Casey Stengel said about the 1962 New York Mets, “Can’t anyone here play this game.†At times on Saturday, it seemed that Chuck Schumer and Company were as lost as a baseball team that blew 120 games.
I guess there are multiple ways of looking at it. One way is that Democratic senators are high-minded philosopher-kings, lovers of democracy and the rule of law while Republicans are evil-minded authoritarians. Or vice versa. Another way is that the outcome was foreordained with just about everybody voting along party lines.
Yet another way, closer to my way of thinking, is that Democrats assumed that the final vote would be basically along partisan lines and didn’t want to be bothered with the trouble and effort of mounting a case capable of changing people’s minds.
I think it’s actually somewhat worse than that. I think that Democrats and Republicans might as well be living on different planets, their views on law, government, justice, and society not just being different but the truth of the views they hold being so self-evident that only malice could explain holding some other view. IMO it’s been this way and getting worse for at least a dozen years now and I see no good way out of it.
“botched” implies there was, given the facts available, a set of alternative tactics and/or strategy that would have resulted in a substantially different vote count.
I don’t think that’s the case. The vast majority of Senators are not basing votes on arguments or evidence, they are basing votes on tribal affiliation and their own political prospects. Therefore they cannot be swayed merely by the absence of tactical mistakes.
Similarly, I don’t think – again, given the facts we know – that there was anything the Trump defense team could have done or said that would have significantly moved votes in the other direction.
It doesn’t matter what the majority does. All that matters is whether the Democrats could have persuaded ten more Republicans to vote for conviction with prompter action, better constructed articles of impeachment, a better case, or other political bargaining. They didn’t even try so we’ll never know.
“All that matters is whether the Democrats could have persuaded ten more Republicans to vote for conviction with prompter action, better constructed articles of impeachment, a better case, or other political bargaining.”
And my argument is that was never in the cards – or if it was in the realm of possibility – it was only for a short time period after the attack itself.
“They didn’t even try so we’ll never know.”
Of course they tried. I think your argument (correct me if I’m wrong) is that they could have tried harder and didn’t. Again, I don’t think that is “botched” in any literal sense.
I would put it another way: Democrats had other priorities besides trying to secure a conviction that go back to the point I made – tribal loyalty and political prospects had a higher priority than maximizing the chances of a conviction.
That’s what’s called a “self-fulling prophecy”.
The available evidence is
1. Some Republicans were convinced to vote for conviction.
2. Not enough did to convict.
3. The House waited a week before impeaching Trump a second time.
4. The single article was extremely narrow–much narrower than Andrew Johnson’s for example. It was also legalistic, charging Trump with a felony.
I infer from those that there was room for improvement and improvement might have garnered more Republican votes to convict. I think they should have voted to censure on Jan 7, for example.
I also have heard of no political bargaining. Was there any? They had plenty of things to offer.
… the truth of the views they hold being so self-evident …
Since Trump became a candidate, the the “self-evident truth” has turned out to be lies fabricated out of thin air, at best. For four years, “self-evident truth” after “self-evident truth” after “self-evident truth” has been revealed to be a lie, and in many cases, the liars were the ones actually committing the claimed “self-evident truth[s]”.
To this day, I have yet to hear any of the “self-evident truth[s]” acknowledged as wrong. Russian collusion did occur, but it was the Clinton campaign. There is a grifter racist president, and his name is Joe Biden. Carter Page was working as a “spy”, but it was for the US.
Now, I am told that Trump called his minions to DC and incited an insurrection by the same people who have been lying for the past four years, and I have no doubt that this “self-evident truth” will be tossed down the memory hole like all the others. (Apparently, the plan was to remain president – however that would work.)
Since the actual speech has nothing even a Trump hater could mistake for incitement to anything, it had to be doctored, and the actual truth had to be transformed into the “self-evident truth”. Moreso, the speech he explains the facts that justify his position, and it is not the mish-mash of nonsense Hillary Clinton uses to prove the “self-evident truth” that she was actually elected president.
As to whether Trumps facts are correct, incorrect, or somewhere between, none of the purveyors of the “self-evident truth” can be bothered to refute. (If every one of those facts is correct, he still could have lost.)
So, I am assured that the “self-evident truth” is that 80 million people hate Trump so much that they were willing to vote for a racist grifter. Maybe or maybe not, but it might be a prudent idea to explain to the 72 million Trump supporters why that might be the case.
Whatever.
Could somebody help me?
Fifty-five Senators voted for witnesses. Why? Then, they voted to impeach without hearing from the witnesses. Why?
Apparently, three Senators found the original proof so compelling they needed no witnesses, and they were Republicans.
Curiouser and curiouser.
“There is a grifter racist president, and his name is Joe Biden. ”
You win the internet today.
Anyway, the overwhelming evidence is that our politics is entirely tribal. Even when there is overwhelming agreement on policy it still doesnt happen. What is shocking is that 7 Senators and 10 Congresspeople voted against their tribe. The House managers presented more than enough evidence for conviction. The metric you are setting is that only if they got 10 more votes would they have done an adequate job. As many people have pointed out, you among them, each politician wins their own seat. Voting against Trump means you lose your office, except maybe Romney and that is not for sure.
Steve
That is refuted by the facts. Some Republicans voted for impeachment. Either our politics is not entirely tribal or the tribes aren’t Democrats and Republicans.
I cannot think of a single instance of a bill in the last decade on which there was overwhelming bipartisan agreement on the primary subject matter that did not contain a “poison pill”. The easiest example is DACA. There was actually a bill submitted on it but it also contained a provision for normalizing not just the people brought here as children but their parents as well. For Republicans that was a poison pill.
@steve
If your choice for Senate leader is the Exalted Cyclops klansman, you are a racist, and I do not care if klansman Byrd got every black person he terrorized or the family of every lynching he facilitated to forgive him.
Even his VP realized he is a racist.
I guess some people are excluded from white privilege and systemic racism. Typical.
“Since Trump became a candidate, the the “self-evident truth†has turned out to be lies fabricated out of thin air, at best.”
I like Prof Turley’s quip. Trump’s the most convicted man never formally charged.
Take heart. Jan 6 was an instantaneous provocation of honest Trump supporters – by Trump – with no hint of Antifa, BLM or whackjobs. Hillary Clinton never claimed a stolen election, tirelessly encouraging healing and unity. And Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris preached “mostly peaceful” protests, never musing about why endless uprisings weren’t common.
I saw it on CNN. Or did I read it in the Times?
.
News Item: Violent Democrats vandalize home of Trump’s lawyer… 100+ death threats…
Mostly peaceful death threats, though.
“That is refuted by the facts. Some Republicans voted for impeachment.”
The exception that proves the rule.
“I cannot think of a single instance of a bill in the last decade on which there was overwhelming bipartisan agreement on the primary subject matter that did not contain a “poison pillâ€. ”
As I recall we actually had an immigration bill passed in 2013 in the Senate with 14 Republicans joining. It had strong public support. The Congress wouldnt pass it. It had 700 miles of border fencing in it. 20,000 more border agents. It did have a 13 year path to citizenship, which is actually as long or longer than most H1B people wait.
Steve
Just one point of clarification. When I say “Congress” I mean both House and Senate. When I mean House I say “House”.
You had said “entirely”. All that is needed to disprove that is one counter-example. I provided one counter-example. It is disproved.
That’s a good example. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 was passed by the Senate and not even considered in the House. Why? Just as I said it contained a poison pill. Since it extended the possibility of citizenship not just to young people brought here as children but to all present illegal immigrants it was deemed an “amnesty bill” by the House which had a Republican majority at the time.
While I agree that there’s broad public support for normalizing the status of those brought here as children and giving them a path to citizenship, I’m not so sure about broad public support for general amnesty.
Then anything that the other tribe does not like can be considered a poison pill. Really hard to see it as a poison pill if 14 GOP senators supported it.
Steve
I’m not sure what your point is. Yes, we have a bicameral legislative branch. They’re not in lockstep. What is acceptable in the Senate is not necessarily acceptable in the House. That’s evidence against your views not supporting them.
“I infer from those that there was room for improvement and improvement might have garnered more Republican votes to convict. I think they should have voted to censure on Jan 7, for example.”
I don’t see any room for improvement. After all, most GoP Senators thought the trial was unconstitutional and voted that way. The notion that they would turn around and convict if only the Democrats had better arguments seems, at best, a stretch to me.
To me it seems obvious that’s it’s primarily about partisanship. The question about the Constitutionality of a trial for Trump after leaving office is dispositive in my view. It’s not a coincidence that one side thinks it’s Constitutional and the other side doesn’t. These are politicians who are cherry-picking justifications. So I think you give Congress too much credit in believing they would set aside their personal partisan and political interests for impeachment.
Where my views differ from steve’s is that I think that members of Congress are first and foremost self-serving. They aren’t primarily tribal, partisan, or even ideological. They’re self-serving.
There’s overlap among partisan, ideological, and self-serving goals so they’re hard to disaggregate.
Andy, in your view was it partisanship when senators thought that Belknap’s trial was unconstitutional? My view is that had the House acted faster that would have dealt with the constitutional issue.
“Where my views differ from steve’s is that I think that members of Congress are first and foremost self-serving. They aren’t primarily tribal, partisan, or even ideological. They’re self-serving.”
I agree with that, but think it supports my point. GoP Senators were not persuadable by any argument Democrats could reasonably offer given the facts of the case because of their self-serving interests. And while you are correct that it’s difficult to disaggregate factors, there is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that tribal/partisan concerns underly their self-interest.
“Andy, in your view was it partisanship when senators thought that Belknap’s trial was unconstitutional? My view is that had the House acted faster that would have dealt with the constitutional issue.”
I don’t know enough about that to have an opinion. I haven’t even read the Wikipedia entry. I would probably defer to PD Shaw.
Would McConnell have allowed the trial? I dont think so. Didnt he refuse to call senators in?
“are first and foremost self-serving. ”
Ok, so I actually mostly agree with this. I just think that right now the way that you self serve is to adhere strictly to the tribe. I think that those Republicans, except maybe Mitt, who voted against Trump will lose in their next primary. Do you disagree?
Steve
I don’t know anything about Utah, Alaska, Maine, Nebraska, etc. politics.
Andy:
I agree to the extent that I think that if you don’t offer anything to them you won’t get anything from them. That’s sort of my point. The Democrats offered nothing other than the recognition that they were doing the right thing regardless of personal cost. I wish it were not the case but that’s not much of an inducement for any politician.
And that’s my meta-point. IMO the reason we’re where we are is that the party leadership of either party is not willing to compromise or offer any sort of inducements to the other party and moreover is inclined to put poison pills in every piece of legislation. This is called “obstructionist” by the party in power and “principled” by the party out of power. Or sometimes “resistance”.
” not willing to compromise or offer any sort of inducements to the other party ”
That immigration bill offered 700 miles of fencing, not something Democrats wanted. Republicans could have had their wall.